Timeline for What happens when a car starts moving? The last moment the car is at rest versus the first moment the car moves
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 17 at 10:45 | comment | added | Miss Understands | @JMac AACK! I can see how that wouldn't make sense. I really screwed up the analogy, but I'll explain what I was thinking even though it doesn't matter. Infinite length is thought of as a (large) finite distance when It really never ends, whereas a planck length is a smallest length, but you think there are infinitely-smaller ones, when there aren't. Like I said, I screwed it up. | |
| Oct 17 at 10:24 | comment | added | JMac | @MissUnderstands How is infinity an analogy at all here? If I think of infinity as a very very large integer, no matter the size, I can double it and still be less than infinity. Planck length is nothing like that. It has a numerical value already. | |
| Oct 17 at 7:28 | comment | added | Miss Understands | @KDP "a unit square with sides of one Plank length" === There can be no such grid at that scale. The "gridness"fades out — the abiliy to distinguish different points. It's exactly the same fallacy as thinking of Infinity as just a very large integer, larger than any other. | |
| Oct 16 at 22:43 | comment | added | KDP | If we have a unit square with sides of one Plank length, what is the length of the diagonal? | |
| Oct 16 at 22:40 | comment | added | KDP | @MissUnderstands I am interested in your opinion on the distinction between a minimum discrete length and a minimum discrete time interval. For example consider a particle with a velocity of 0.25c. Does it wait for 4 Plank intervals and then instantly move forward one plank length, or does it move forward a 1/4 Planck length every plank time interval? | |
| Oct 16 at 22:16 | comment | added | Miss Understands | @KDP The point is that discrete times and places are possible only above a certain scale. Below that scale you can't use stage magic tricks like Zeno's paradox. | |
| Oct 15 at 13:36 | comment | added | Miss Understands | @JMac So you think the majority of scientific lit says there's information below the planck limit but we just can't see it. Yeah, that's fine 'n dandy. | |
| Oct 15 at 13:34 | comment | added | JMac | Because I dont believe random unsourced posts here that go against a majority of the scientific information I can find...? 10/10 great logic. | |
| Oct 15 at 13:22 | comment | added | JMac | I will believe that's a possibility, because the science hasn't ruled it out at all. I think it's a much more honest way to approach science than to rule things out without providing good reasons/evidence. | |
| Oct 15 at 13:15 | comment | added | Miss Understands | @JMac Ok, believe that things happen faster than the planck time, but you just don't notice them. Believe that 2 objects can be smaller than the planck size, but we just can't resolve them because it's impossible to build a microscope that small. Believe that, it's okay with me. | |
| Oct 15 at 13:08 | comment | added | JMac | I think you need to provide some good sources for that, because practically everything I've read besides some over-simplified pop-sci has said otherwise. The idea of "quantum foam" for example, is basically the opposite of what you're describing where things become like a single colour pixel at that scale. | |
| Oct 15 at 12:50 | comment | added | Miss Understands | @jmac Make sure you don't get it backwards. It's not the case that there is detail below the planck limit, but we just can't see it because of uncertainty. No. In fact, there is no detail below the planck limit. It's like zooming in on a photograph until it turns blury, and then it's a single color pixel. There is no more information hidden in he image. | |
| Oct 15 at 12:47 | comment | added | JMac | The inability to measure such things is due to the inherent uncertainty of our measurements. That does not mean that events cannot occur in less time than that, or that things can occur in sequence in less time. It just means we dont have a feasible way to measure it because we know any measurement will inherently effect the system we were trying to measure in a way that interferes with measurement. | |
| Oct 15 at 12:42 | comment | added | Miss Understands | @JMac As Hawking once said, " Wrong again, Albert." No event below the plank limit can be distinguished from any other event which is closer than that to it (in 4 dimensions). They are the same event. | |
| Oct 15 at 12:07 | comment | added | JMac | I'm pretty sure what you are saying about Planck time is a misconception. The Planck time gives a limit to our theoretical measurement accuracy due to the uncertainty principle, but it does not imply that time does not exist at scales below that. Same with Planck Length. | |
| Oct 15 at 8:59 | history | answered | Miss Understands | CC BY-SA 4.0 |